Guidelines for Conducting Workshops and Seminars

That Actively Engage Participants

These guidelines are aimed at helping workshop leaders or facilitators conduct

workshops. Please bear in mind that conducting the workshop is only one of
three components included in a systematic approach to workshops. Prior to
the workshop event itself is a substantial planning phase and following the
workshop is an evaluation.
Workshops are teaching and learning arrangements, usually in small groups,
that are structured to produce active participation in learning, Traditionally,
workshops provided participants with some opportunity to practice skills and
receive feedback. However, current usage is so loose that any learning event
that aspires to engage the learners actively may be calleda workshop.
Seminars are small group teaching and learning arrangements that use group
interaction as a means of engaging participants. Although seminars usually
begin with a presentation or mini- lecture to provide the basis for discussion,
the word “seminar” also includes rather formal group discussions led by the
teacher and focused on the content rather than on issues arising from
students (Jaques, 1991).
Popularity of Workshops and Seminars. Workshops and seminars are among
the most popular training devices in higher education. Properly designed, they
are a time and cost efficient method of producing active involvement of
learners compared to individual training activities. Workshops demonstrate
modern principles of teaching such as active engagement of the learners.
They provide opportunity for the interaction that enables the teachers to
connect the material to the context of the learners. And they provide an
opportunity for group interaction, which is important for trainees who are
becoming increasingly isolated in their work. (Bison & Stevens, 1995)
Phase I: Before the workshop begins
1. Specify the learning objectives of the workshop
Every decision that you make about the workshop will depend on your
objectives for the learner and the success will be measured against its
objectives. So make sure objectives are clearly stated for each activity.
Objectives are clearest when they are expressed in specific behavioural terms.
Statements of objectives should begin with the phrase “at the end of the
workshop the learner will....” followed by a verb that demonstrates the
learning. For example, if the learning objective is knowledge, the learner
might list, describe, recall, debate, critique, or report. All of these activities
demonstrate the knowledge that he or she has learned. If the learning
objective is a skill the learner might solve, demonstrate, organize, or diagnose.
And if the objective is an attitude the learner might approach, avoid, laugh,
and manifest sadness, concern, or caring.
It is also useful to specify the performance levels and the conditions for each
learning objective. In a brief workshop on small group teaching, for example,
faculty cannot be expected to emerge with a complete mastery of the skills
but they may gain an awareness of the skills, an appreciation of the skills, or a
competence in one of the components of the skill. Brief workshops may
provide opportunity for participants to share ideas, experiences, and
understanding on a topic.
2. Pre-Circulated Materials, Requests
We can assume that, at this point, you have already chosen and sent
materials that are to be pre and you have already sent any requests of the
participants for certain kinds of preparation (such as developing a case to
bring to the workshop). These activities really belong to the planning phase
not the conducting phase. However, during the conducting phase you need to
think about how these pre-circulated materials or tasks will be integrated into
the activities of the workshop. You must use them. Otherwise participants will
feel they have prepared in vain.
3. Selection of Strategies
Make sure that every strategy that you use is in service of a learning
objective. And vary the strategies to keep the session lively and to
accommodate different learning styles.
4. Check your media
Test out the slide or overhead projector. Make sure that they are focused and
pointed in the right direction. Fumbling with equipment wastes time and gives
the impression that you do not care about the learners’ time. Check to ensure
that there are pens for flip chart writing and tape if you want to hang some
sheets.
5. Materials, handouts
They should be well organized, carefully written and targeted for the
participants. Out-of- date material or material intended for another audience
gives the impression of lack of attention to your participants. If you decide to
hand out paper at the beginning, you might as well place it on the tables in
front of each chair so that early arrivals can look over the materials and you
won’t waste time shuffling paper.
6. Timing
It is important to keep to your schedule but difficult to keep track of time when
you are immersed in interaction. Consider appointing a timekeeper who
agrees to signal you when it is time for a break. Eisen and Stevens (1995)
remind us to estimate a generous amount of time for each activity once your
objectives and activities have been chosen and then add ten to twenty
percent more time. Real activities usually take longer than the planned ones.
7. Seating arrangement
Circular seating arrangements foster sharing of power and interaction
between members. Long tables with the teacher at one end tend to
concentrate control in the teacher and reduce the tendency for interaction
among participants. It is generally a good idea to allow participants to choose
their own chairs unless your teaching plan requires a certain seating
arrangement.
If you are arranging a multi-group workshop you have to make the additional
choice of how to seat participants at the various tables. Should tables be
homogenous for specialties or disciplines or should they be heterogeneous?
Your decision will depend entirely on the objectives. If, for example, the target
behaviour is some kind of interviewing technique that is implemented
differently across disciplines, then a homogeneous group might be best since
the members could focus on aspects of the problem specific to their settings.
On the other hand, if the target behaviour were team building across
disciplines then mixing them would be best because it would allow
participants to learn from one another’s points of view.
8. Trouble Shooting
Troubleshoot the workshop before problems arise. Develop advanced
contingency plans for likely problems that could occur (Eisen & Stevens,
1995). For example, you may wish to develop plans for the most likely kinds of
disruptive behaviors like the dominant participant, reticence. (See Tiberius,
1990, for ideas)
9. Greeting participants
Some workshop coordinators avoid contact with participants before the
workshop out of shyness or a sense that such interaction would reduce the
drama of the presentation. Greeting participants probably does reduce
dramatic tension just as it would in a theater if the cast of the play would chat
up the audience. On the other hand what is lost in drama is gained in
psychological comfort, essential if the workshop is to be interactive.

10. Establishing Rapport

In a brief workshop, rapport has to be established quickly. Enthusiasm for the
subject is a good starting point as it is one of the primary factors associated
with rapport. Rapport is also associated with knowing one another,
presumably because background knowledge facilitates collaboration.
Introductions are a good way to get participants and group leaders to know
one another. But, beware of the often used technique that begins a workshop
by taking a turn around the room, requiring everyone to answer the question,
what is your background and what do you want from this workshop. First, if
the number of people in the workshop is sizable it may take too long for
everyone to speak. Second, it may not be helpful for everyone to hear that
many people want something that you are not providing. As leader you have
come to the workshop prepared for something. Your role is not infinitely
flexible. It might be better to give participants a brief description of who you
are and what you have prepared and then ask them some question that
explores their connection to the topics as you have prepared them.
Phase II: At the Beginning of the Workshop
1. Introductions
Introductions provide information that enables group leaders to adapt their
comments and examples to the interests and backgrounds of the participants.
Perhaps even more importantly, introductions inform participants about one
other. Participants are likely to be more understanding of a shift in the focus of
the workshop if they understand that it is motivated by a response to the
needs of the vast majority. Finally, Eisen & Stevens, (1990) remind us that
introductions help members establish rapport.
Introductions should be quite brief if the session is brief. For a session of an
hour or two, with, say, a dozen participants, introductions should not be more
than a few sentences. Instructions are important. Here is an example:
“It would be helpful to know your interest in this material and your experience
with it. I’d like to hear from each of you briefly, stating why you are here and
what connection you already have with this topic.”
2. Preview the workshop
You can assume that your participants will have read the title of your
workshop and have taken note of the time it occupies. But they need to know
a lot more. Will there be a break? When? What will they be expected to do? If
the workshop involves active participation, it is best to inform participants up
front about this. What are they going to learn? Can they take a handout from
the pile? Are we going to spend half of our time introducing one another or are
we actually going to learn something? How long is s/he going to go on
speaking? Can I ask my question? A typical introduction might look like this:
“The handouts placed around the table are for you. They contain background
material (e.g. tables and figures) for our topic so you don’t have to write
anything down. We really only have a little more than an hour so we won’t be
taking a break but we will be breaking up the activities. I’d like to begin by
inviting each of you to introduce yourself. Then I will briefly present some
recent information. The rest of the time will be devoted to interaction and
questions, basically making the information relevant to your concerns
3. The “educational contract”—Agreeing on the Objectives
Obviously as workshop leaders you have prepared for the workshop. You
cannot be expected to drop everything to accommodate the idiosyncratic
needs of a few participants. On the other hand, your objectives should be open
to modification. It is important to connect new information to the previous
experiences and knowledge of participants. The introductions can be a useful
device for supplying both the group leader and the participants with
information about their interests and experience. You should use the
information to match the needs of the participants with the objectives and
methods.
Brief workshops, of several hours’ duration instead of several days cannot
afford a lengthy period for contracting. But to skip this step altogether would
be a missed opportunity for engagement of participants. At minimum you
should attempt to summarize the needs and experience of the participants,
state how you might accommodate them, ask if there is any other way you
might accommodate them, and admit clearly when you cannot accommodate
due to lack of preparation or knowledge on your part. Following is an example
of such a statement:
“I can see there are a lot of primary care practitioners here. I do have some
examples from primary care settings, which I will use. And I will be asking
those of you who are primary care physicians to help me generate some
examples.”
Phase III: During the Workshop—Methods
The methods must suit your objectives. For example, if you want to help the
participants learn a skill then you must provide an opportunity for them to
practice that skill with feedback. If you do nothing but talk, no matter how
captivating your speech, participants are unlikely to learn a skill. So you must
begin by giving some thought to specifying your learning objectives. A simple
classification that is widely used is to consider classifying your learning
objectives as knowledge, attitudes, or skills. Further classification is useful too.
For example, you may be interested in facilitating problem-solving skills,
reflective thinking, critical thinking, awareness, appreciation, or
understanding. In short, look for verbs that describe precisely what the learner
is expected to learn.
It is important to specify the level of the performance as well. After a one-hour
workshop participants may not be expected to carry out a skill in its complete
form but they may be “able to recognize the type of problem” and “aware of
the appropriate approach”.
Virtually any educational method can be, and is, used in a workshop setting
but the most appropriate ones are those that actively engage the learners.
Unfortunately there is no simple set of rules that match methods with
objectives. Indeed, many methods are able to serve several objectives. Below
is a list of various methods. Choose the ones that are most likely to help your
students achieve their specific learning objectives.
1. When presenting information is useful in achieving your objectives
Presentations are often essential in workshops or seminars as a means of
providing needed information. They are appropriate when the goals include
acquiring knowledge. But keep them brief. Workshops and seminars should
provide more opportunity for participants’ interaction than lectures. Here are a
few suggestions:
Brief presentation followed by questions, the old stand-by of scientific
conferences, works well when participants know enough about the topic to
generate stimulating questions. In a useful variation of this technique the
presenter organizes the content of the workshop into chunks and makes a
series of brief presentations followed by discussion and questions. The key to
this format is to convince the participants that you do not have a pre-
determined number of “points” to make. If they get the idea that you do, they
will stifle their discussion and questions so that they don’t miss out on getting
all of the material that was planned. Here is one way to avoid the creation of
such an expectation:
“This is a very rich area. There is enough material to keep us going until next
Tuesday. My plan is to raise what I think is one of the most important points in
the area and open it up for discussion. When the discussion fades, I’ll
introduce another one. We’ll do this until the time runs out or until the points
start to become boring.”
Presentations with Designated respondents. One method of ensuring reaction
to the brief presentation, especially in larger sized small groups, is to assign
specific tasks to various participants. In formal conferences respondents will
prepare their speeches well in advance and will deliver mini lectures. But this
method has been used effectively even in the relatively casual atmosphere of
the workshop or seminar where the participants may not know very much
about the topic. The key to success is to assign tasks that engage the
learners. For example, by a show of hands participants may be identified as
representing different disciplines, practices, or research areas. Then, each
group can be given a “listening assignment”, for example, to think of
examples from their area illustrating the phenomenon being presented or to
think of obstacles to carrying out the suggestions in their setting (presumably
so that these could be addressed later).
A Panel Discussion is an informal discussion among members of a selected
group in front of an audience. The word “audience” here is important.
Although panels can be much livelier than single person presentations, if not
controlled, they may take up all the airtime among themselves. The audience
is then left with a passive role except for vicarious involvement they might
enjoy through observing the panelists’ discussion. Panels are good choices for
teaching large groups where there are too many people in the audience for
audience interaction anyway. But they do not compare well with the
opportunity for interaction in the small group.
The bottom line is that, if you have the services of expert resource persons
and you would like to try a panel, make sure that you structure the session to
leave plenty of time for audience questions and participation.
A Debate is a highly engaging device for presenting material since the
participants themselves take part. Learners are divided into sides, for and
against some controversial issue. During a preparatory phase debaters can
inform themselves and prepare their arguments with the help of relevant
material that has been made available to them. Alternatively, if the workshop
proceeds across several sessions, participants can be asked to research their
own material to support arguments at a subsequent debate.
During the debate itself the various dimensions of the issue should be brought
out in an open and friendly manner. It is important to encourage the debaters
to focus on convincing one another of their arguments rather than on
discrediting or attacking their opponents. A motivating addition to the debate
is a brief opinion questionnaire before and after the debate to measure how
opinions have changed.
Prepared Media can also be used to deliver information. Again, keep it brief.
Use it more to stimulate conversation than to replace it. A popular form of
video taped presentation for use with small groups is the “trigger tape”, a
brief, dramatic presentation that triggers interaction among participants. The
same goes for slides or even graphical information.
2. When reading is useful in achieving your objectives
Reading is a very useful method of providing information providing
participants do it.
Reading prior to the workshop. Usually readings are circulated prior to the
workshop to provide background material for discussion. Moreover, most
participants would rather read according to their own time schedule and in the
privacy and quiet of their study than under the pressure of time and the gazes
of others during a workshop. Unhappily the pressures of modern life are such
that participants frequently arrive without having read the material. Workshop
coordinators attempt to overcome this problem in several ways:
Requiring an assignment Participants may be asked to take a position based
on the readings or to develop a case or example from their own practices
illustrating an issue that is raised in the readings.
Brief position papers Students can be required to write a brief position paper
or statement (a few paragraphs or one page) stating their position or response
to an article that they have read. This task not only ensures that they do the
reading it also increases the depth of their thinking. The position papers serve
another objective if they are submitted to the teacher prior to the class. They
provide the teacher with an understanding of the students’ thinking,
strengths, and weaknesses that need to be addressed in class. This is an
excellent device for finding out about students so that you can direct the class
time toward responding to student learning difficulties or make the class
relevant to student concerns.
In typical adult education settings such as the ones in which we teach,
students have difficulty getting the papers to us prior to class because they
are often not on campus between classes. Here is where the courseware can
be extremely helpful. Our experience with on-line courses is that students
have little difficulty submitting their response papers prior to the class
electronically.
Responses to the position papers If students are submitting papers
electronically, there is another strategy, suggested by John Walker of the
University of Minnesota that not only motivates students to read carefully but
also engages other students in critical thinking. A quarter of the class, for
example, writes position papers in response to reading an article. They post
these position papers on a bulletin board on the course website, Another
quarter of the class is required to respond to these position papers. The
percentages of students doing each task and the tasks themselves can be
rotated around the class so that everyone does the same number of tasks
during the year. By this method the teacher gets to view, not only the position
papers, but responses to them. Often students make the major points of the
session and they clarify serious misconceptions so that the teacher can
address them effectively.
Reading during the workshop and the Jigsaw Technique. An increasingly
popular method involves participants reading brief assignments during the
workshop, which are then either discussed or reported to the larger group. A
more complex method that has been particularly effective at encouraging
reading during a workshop, is the “jigsaw” technique. It involves requiring
participants to read different things. Each selected reading is designed to
bring out a separate component of the matter at hand. The participants in the
team then combine their knowledge to generate a complete picture of the
phenomenon. According to this technique, originally described by Aronson et.
a!. (1978) assignment is divided into parts and each part is parceled out to a
different team, called the “expert” teams. The first task of these teams is to
make themselves “expert” at their particular part of the assignment by
reading about it. But they must also discuss how each of them will teach what
they know because, in the next phase of the process, the expert teams
regroup into “home” teams consisting of one member from every expert
team. The task of the home groups is to put together the entire issue or solve
the entire problem by combining the components. Obviously, the groups must
cooperate. Each member of the home group is valued for his or her ability to
teach the group his or her part of the problem.
3. When Demonstrations and Dramatic Enactments are useful in achieving
your objectives
Demonstrations are useful as a component in skill learning to model either
proper or incorrect procedures. By themselves they cannot teach skills unless
they are followed by actual practice by the participants, with constructive
feedback. On the other hand demonstrations can encourage learners by
convincing them of the effectiveness of a procedure.
4. When Practice with Feedback is useful in achieving your objectives
Practice with feedback is the standard method of skills learning, even complex
cognitive skills like problem solving and critical thinking. The generic form of
the method is a brief practice session followed by feedback. Others in the
group observe, learning vicariously from the performer’s mistakes and the
corrections of the coach.
Thinking Skills, such as problem solving and critical thinking, are difficult to
teach because they are largely invisible. The results of a poor problem-solving
performance are visible but not the process itself. It is essential, then, in
organizing a practice session directed at thinking skills, to include a procedure
for disclosure of the mental content of the performer and even of the coach.
For example, medical trainees might be asked what they were thinking when
they asked the patient a particular diagnostic question.
Helping Trios. One variation on the theme that is popular in interpersonal skills
training, teaching and medical interviewing is called “helping trios”. It
increases the active engagement of participants to 100%. The group divides
into teams of three. One member of the team performs a procedure, say
giving feedback to the other, while the third observes. A checklist often aids
observers. After the performance all three give feedback to one another. Each
player appreciates aspects of the performance that are invisible to the others.
After one iteration performers switch roles and play it again. After three turns,
when everyone has taken each role, all of the triads join a general discussion
of the problems and issues involved in the targeted performance.
Paired Interviewing. Kagan (cited in Millis, 1995) developed a method that
takes advantage of the old truism that you learn best by teaching. The method
consists of a pair of learners who interview one another. Learners who think
that they understand something after reading about it find that the task of
being able to explain their understanding to someone else in answer to a
question requires a much deeper level of understanding and integration of the
material. The interviewer who is confused by the answer to her or his question
is providing indirect feedback to the questioner about the clarity of the
answer. Subsequently, after two pairs engage in this interviewing process they
can join one another to discuss problems of understanding the material.
Strictly speaking, the goal of this procedure is integration of knowledge, not
the learning of skills.
Testing One Another. Just as teaching is a way of learning, taking tests could
also be an effective way of learning. The problem is that taking tests is usually
not fun. One method (Sherman, 1991, cited in Millis, 1995) that takes the pain
out of learning from testing can be adapted to the workshop setting. Prior to
the workshop each participant prepares a question and a thorough answer.
During the workshop participants are organized into pairs. After the pairs
exchange questions each participant works independently for 20 minutes or so
answering the partner’s question. The two then compare their prepared
answers with those that were generated in the workshop. In addition to
providing feedback to those answering during the workshop the task requires
critical thinking since they must isolate and compare the strengths and
weakness of each answer. The goal of this procedure, like the previous one, is
the integration of knowledge not the learning of skills.
Videotape feedback is a useful aid in practice sessions, particularly when the
target behaviour is visible on video like some physical performance such as
the use of body language. When the focus of the training is cognitive the
teacher or members of the group must stop the tape at critical points to allow
for a discussion of the thinking behind the performance skills.
Concentric Circles or the “Fish Bowl” technique consists of a small circle of
group members within a larger circle. It extends the method of practice with
feedback to situations in which the behaviour in question is a group
phenomenon. Members of the inner circle “practice” by interacting in some
way (problem solving, discussing, teaching) while the outer circle observes
them and provides feedback.
Separating the Idea Generating Phase from the Critical Phase. One of the
impediments
to creative problem solving is premature criticism, which tends to stifle
creative ideas. To overcome the tendency toward premature criticism the
problem-solver should attempt to separate the idea-generating phase from
the critical phase. This workshop structure provides an opportunity for
participants to experience the value of separating the two phases. It also
provides an opportunity for participants to practice judgement, that is,
evaluating the contributions offered by others. In contrast, most of the
techniques described above are structured to provide opportunities to practice
generating ideas or solutions. The group is broken into smaller groups, each of
which addresses a problem, question or an issue of some kind. They are
encouraged to generate as many solutions as possible but not to be critical of
any of them. Each group passes its solutions on to another whose task is to
critically examine the solutions offered for feasibility, cost effectiveness and to
suggest ways that the various solutions might be tested.
5. When Eliciting Audience Reactions and Responses is useful in achieving
your objectives
Brainstorming is a creative thinking technique in which group members storm
a problem with their brains. The leader explains the procedure to the group
members: “No critical judgments until later. Don’t be concerned about the
quality of ideas, quantity is all that counts. Wild ideas are encouraged.
Improvements on someone else’s idea are legitimate.” A recorder lists the
ideas while the leader keeps vigilant to remind contributors when the rules are
violated. Although this method was originally used to generate new ideas and
to overcome blocks in thinking, it is now frequently used in combination with
other methods, to engage the learners, to warm up the group, and to inform
the teacher about the learners. Beware of two pitfalls in using this method,
failure to make any use of the list after it is generated and taking too much
time to generate it.
The best example I have ever seen in the use of this method is was during a
workshop on managing conflict. The workshop leader asked us to shout out all
the words that are associated with conflict. She wrote them down rapidly and
continuously, filling an entire overhead in a little over a minute. At later points
in the workshop she quickly dropped our list on the overhead projector to
make a point. At the beginning of a workshop on child abuse, a workshop
leader asked her group to list all of the definitions of abuse. Another asked his
group to list all of the causes of jaundice. In less than ten minutes these
brainstorming sessions accomplished several objectives for these teachers.
The list of ideas informed the teachers about the starting point of knowledge
of their group so that they could modify their examples and level to fit. And
the process of listing the examples helped learners to connect the material to
their own knowledge and get them talking.
A Buzz Group is a technique highly effective for getting participation from
everyone in the group. The leader divides the group into small clusters of
three to six and then provides each cluster with a question or two. A recorder
in each group reports to the larger group. A discussion usually follows.
In contrast to brainstorming sessions, in which only one participant can speak
at a time, in buzz groups a participant can be speaking in every cluster. Like
brainstorming, buzz groups can be used to inform the teacher about the
learners’ connection with the topic and to engage the learners.
Think-Pair-Share. The think-pair-share procedure developed by Frank Lyman,
(Cited in Millis, 1995), like buzz groups, allows more than one person to speak
at the same time. Indeed, during the first phase all of the participants are
engaged in “thinking” about a problem or question that the teacher presents.
After a few minutes participants are invited to form “pairs” and share the
problem with their partners. During the third phase learners can share their
thoughts with larger groups or the entire workshop. This procedure not only
provides a lot of floor time for everyone; it provides an easy route into sharing
for shy or more pensive members. It gives them time to formulate their
thoughts and then try them out in pairs before going public.
Voting with your Feet! Stand up and be counted! Value Lines. Several versions
of this
method appear to have been developed independently. These procedures add
a physical dimension to the engagement of the learner. One version,
developed by Ivan Silver (1992) for use in a medical education context, is
called “Stand Up and Be Counted.” The facilitator gives participants two
minutes to write down whether they agree or disagree with the way that a
particular case or problem was handled. They must give reasons also. Then
participants are asked to share their thoughts with the participant next to
them just as they do at the beginning of a think-pair-share exercise. However,
the third phase of the procedure does not constitute sharing ideas with the
large group. Instead participants are asked to get up from their chairs and
stand at the point in a line that corresponds to their opinion on the issue. The
facilitator has drawn a huge Likert-type scale on the wall of the class marked
at five points by the words “Strongly agree”, “disagree”, “don’t know”,
“agree” and “strongly agree”. If the class is too large for the size of the wall
available, the facilitator asks for half or a quarter of the class at one time.
The facilitator then interviews participants asking them why they chose their
particular position in the line. For about 10 or 15 minutes the facilitator
encourages a debate, beginning with those at opposite ends of the line.
Gradually the facilitator widens the debate to include others at various places
in the line and those who are still seated. Finally, after asking everyone to sit
down the facilitator summarizes the discussion. For variation the process can
be repeated with a different scenario for the next portion of the class.
Another version, called “Value Lines” is described by Barbara Millis in the
Teaching at UNL newsletter, (1994). Large wall graphics are not necessary in
her version because only two anchors, one at each end, such as “Strong
disagreement” and “strong agreement”, describe the line. Each end student
could be asked to hold up a card with one of these phrases on it. Barbara
follows with many helpful exercises, as anyone knows who has been a
participant in one of her workshops. For example, persons who are selected
from different points on the line might be invited to share their ideas. Persons
at the end of the line can be asked to share their ideas with middle persons, or
persons at opposite ends may be invited to pair up.
Card-Sorting. A card-sorting game called “Do You Have Any Fives?” developed
by Ivan Silver and Nathan Herrmann (1996) provides an opportunity for all
participants to test their knowledge by placing cards in the appropriate
categories and by teaching one another. At the start of the game each
participant has in front of him or her, a pile of twenty to thirty cards that he or
she must sort into four to six categories. Each card has a characteristic written
on it that more accurately describes one of the categories than the others. For
example, one participant who picks up a card saying “crushing pain in the
center of my chest” might place it in the category “Myocardial infarction.” She
would then explain to others why she chose that category for this particular
card. Thus, participants have an opportunity not only to associate diagnoses
with categories but to learn from one another and to teach one another. After
participants have sorted all the cards into categories, the facilitator will review
all the cards in the categories, and making necessary corrections by providing
additional information and explanations, The categories are defined by signs
anchored in little stands or by folded upside-down-V shaped paper with the
category name written on them. Dr. Silver has used from 4 to 6 categories
successfully at each table, To accommodate larger numbers of participants he
simply duplicates the number of tables.
One of the exciting outcomes of this method is the confirming realization
among participants that collectively they know a great deal about the subject.
Even people without medical training, Dr. Silver has found, can get a very high
score on medical sorting tasks when they pool their knowledge in this way.
Writing. Another method of eliciting responses from the learners and ensuring
their engagement in the task is the use of a “reaction sheet”. Sheets of paper
with instructions to answer a few questions are distributed to the group at an
appropriate moment. Typically they ask questions designed to elicit useful
feedback from the participants about their learning:
Write down ideas that are new to you; Ideas that you question; Ideas that
really “hit home” for whatever reason.
Group Leader Skills—Active Listening. This guide focuses on exercises that can
be conducted in class. It does not include the many skills that group leaders
can employ to facilitate sharing of audience reactions, responses and feelings.
See Phase III in this guide for some sources. However, a skilled group leader
can make a huge difference to the willingness of participants to share their
thoughts and feelings. One particularly potent group
•of such skills is bundled under the concept of “active listening.” We urge
seminar and workshop leaders to seek training in active listening at your
institution. One of the early
• exercises, that have been a model for training in active listening for faculty,
is Steven Phillips’ Exercise Number Eight, in Bergquist and Phillips’ Handbook
for Faculty Development (1977).
6. When Problem-solving or Case Based Learning is useful in achieving your
objectives
Problem-solving or case based learning is especially engaging of learners.
There are many variations on the problem or case learning theme, not all
suited for use in workshops.
Structured case or problem scenario. One of the most flexible and useful
methods is perhaps the case or problem scenario presented to the whole
group or, if the group is large, to subgroups of three or four. After the groups
discuss the problem for 5 or 10 minutes the teacher goes around the room
listening to their solutions, approaches, conclusions. Shortcomings and
strengths of the various contributions can then be discussed.
Variation 1: Random Reporting: One weakness of this procedure is that the
more assertive learners nearly always become the reporters for the group.
Another weakness is that some learners who do not fully understand the
solutions or conclusions offered by their group might not catch up. A
modification of this method, described by Barbara Millis (1995) overcomes the
problem: once the group has discussed the question or solved the problem
they are required to make certain that every group member can summarize
the group’s conclusions. The teacher goes from one subgroup to another
calling on one of its members at random and asking her or him to report to the
entire workshop. Those chosen to report are less inhibited because they are
reporting the group consensus rather than their own views.
Variation 2: The Jigsaw Technique is another variation of the problem-solving
procedure that encourages broader involvement. According to this technique,
originally described by Aronson et. al. (1978), the problem, question or
assignment is divided into parts and each part is parceled out to a different
team, called the “expert” teams. The first task of these teams is to make
themselves “expert” at their particular part of the problem. But they must also
discuss how each of them will teach what they know because, in the next
phase of the process, the expert teams regroup into “home” teams consisting
of one member of every expert team. The task of the home groups is to put
together the entire issue or solve the entire problem by combining the
components. Obviously, the groups must cooperate. Each member of the
home group is valued for his or her ability to teach the group his or her part of
the problem.
Dramatic enactment. A particularly compelling and efficient technique for
presenting the problem is to enact it, A brief dramatic presentation reveals not
only the problem but its context as well. This method can be used
spontaneously to act out a situation or “test” a solution proposed by the
group. When it is used in this way it is usually called role-play. For a
description of a workshop using role-play in this way to train residents in
teaching medical students see Tiberius, Silver, Fleming, Hoffman & Cappe
(1990)
probIem-based learning, as practiced in most medical schools, is too time-
consuming for :the typical workshop. In the course of tackling the problem
participants identify gaps in their knowledge or understanding which they then
fill by individual study and by sharing information with their peers. Workshops
and seminars can use this method but the materials must be prepared and
available for the group participants.
Case-Based Learning as it was developed in the Harvard School of Business is
carried out in relatively large classes, sixty or so. But it can be adapted easily
to a workshop format. First, a number of sub groups read a rather detailed
case and discuss it. Their task is to develop a response to questions posed by
the case. Then all of the sub groups come together for a kind of debate about
what is the best course of action. The teacher points to individuals and asks
each of them, “What would you do in this situation?” The large group sessions
can become highly confrontive as individuals are intentionally pitted against
one another by a skillful teacher. In the workshop situation it would be better
to pit subgroups against one another than individuals. Letting groups rather
than individuals argue about the best course of action produces a safer
interpersonal climate.
7. When Unplanned Strategies are useful in achieving your objectives
Even though you have carefully planned the entire session, opportunities may
arise for spontaneous interventions. For example, you may notice an example
of the phenomenon that you are trying to teach within the learning group
itself. Pointing out such parallels is a powerful strategy for connecting the
lesson to the real context of the learners.
Phase III (cont.) During the Workshop—
Group Dynamics
So far this outline has focused on procedures for arranging workshops and
seminars that achieve certain learning needs. Usually the workshop leader is
more than a planner of the structure of the workshop; he or she also functions
as the group facilitator. It would be useful, therefore, for prospective workshop
coordinators to learn something about small group dynamics. Unfortunately
this is a vast topic, beyond the scope of this brief survey of methods. (See
Jaques, 1991; Tiberius, 1994)
One thing worth learning is the distinction between task directed,
maintenance behaviors and self-directed behaviors.
Phase IV: Closing the Workshop
1. Summarize and Reconnect with Objectives
What was it you set out to do? What has been accomplished and what has
not? If something was left out did something else arise that was more
important? Participants need a few minutes of reflection to gain perspective
on what they have just been through. For example, they may have forgotten
that the goals of the workshops were to clarify certain problems not to
attempt to solve them. If they are not reminded of the more modest goal of
the workshop they may leave disappointed. Worse yet, they may take it out
on the evaluation form.
2 Evaluation (Levels taken from Dixon, 1978)
Level I: Opinions and Satisfaction. The most common means of evaluating
workshops are attendance plus a measure of customer satisfaction, a
questionnaire composed of rating scale items asking participants whether they
got what they expected, what they learned and whether they think it will be
useful in the real setting. Qualitative methods, including focus groups or
individual interviews, can provide the opportunity for participants to raise
unanticipated issues.
Attendance and satisfaction are usually accepted as evidence by
administrators and workshop planners of the successfulness of a workshop.
But sometimes the customer does not know best, Participants can be overly
optimistic about the value of new learning while still feeling the high of an
exciting workshop. A delayed measure may provide a more accurate reflection
of the workshop participants’ satisfaction. Questionnaires sent to participants
several weeks or months after the workshop may provide a more accurate
measure of the impact of the workshop.
Level II: Competence Measures. Quantitative measures of competence include
measures of knowledge, skills and attitudes using instruments such as
multiple choice exams and OSCE stations. Qualitative measures include
attitude assessing questionnaires and interviews.
Level III: Performance. In the health professions performance might be
measured by such quantitative indices as prescribing data and x-ray utilization
or qualitative indices such as explorations of barriers to change and chart
stimulated recall.
Level IV: Outcome Measures. Evaluation of the behavior that is the target of
the workshop under conditions as similar as possible to those in the real
setting. The actual impact of the learned behaviour in the real setting may be
the gold standard but it is difficult to measure because of the problems of
isolating the impact of the workshop from all of the other variables that effect
the real environment. Moreover, the workshop may be successful in the sense
that participants learn the skills but still they may not transfer to the
workplace because of adverse conditions there. Quantitative measures might
include infection rates, pain scales, mobility and mortality. Qualitative
measures might include quality of life interviews.
Phase V: Enhancing the Impact of the Workshop through Follow up
Follow-up activities can enhance the impact of the workshop in the real
setting. For example, providing workshop participants with additional reading
material or annotated bibliographies, or sending such materials to them later
can reinforce the lessons of the workshop, particularly if the materials are
tailored to the specific interests of individual participants. Electronic bulletin
boards are another strategy for continuing the involvement of participants
after the workshop. (Eisen & Stevens, 1995). Finally, bringing participants
back together for a second workshop can enhance impact especially if the
subsequent session includes testimonials on the success of the learned
behaviors.